Sahrdayaloka Part 01

SR No.: 006908
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Tapasvi Nandi
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad
Publication Year: 2005
Total Pages: 602
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 14 MB

Page 539

513
'Laksaņā His scheme of division may be represented as follows :
laksanā
Suddhā
Upacara-miśrā
Upādāna
(kuntah pravišanti)
Laksana (gangāyām ghosah)
suddhópacāra Miśrā
gaunopacāra miérā
sāropā sādhyavasānā
sāropā sādhya-vasānā (āyurghỉtam) (ayur eva idam)
(gaur vāhikah) (gaurevāyam) The ancient commentators Mānikyacandra and Jayanta think that Mammata follows Mukulabhatta in his classification of laksaņā. Consequently they interpret Mammata's words in such a way as to support the above classification. We think that this view is incorrect for the following reasons :
(1) Mammata has nowhere stated, neither in any of the kārikās nor in vrtti, that ‘upacāramiśrā' forms a primary division of laksanā, along with śuddhā. We have shown above that the natural and direct conclusion from his kārikās and vrtti is that the primary divisions of laksaņā are 'śuddha' and 'gauna'.
The primary division upacaramiīrā is, however, deduced from the words, "ubhayarūpā ceyam śuddhā, upacāreņa a-miśratvāt.” But this deduction is unwarranted. What these sentences tell us is that suddha-laksaņā is upacāreņa amiśritā, i.e. possesses no admixture of upacāra. The whole question here is what
er division of laksanā Mammata has in view, when he says that suddha-laksanā, is upacāra-a-misritā or what other division of laksana is excluded by the characteristic "upacāreņa a-miśritatvam" of suddhā-laksana or what other division of laksanā Mammaţa regards as "upacāreņa miśrita". On the answer that we give to this question, will depend the meaning in which the word 'upacāra' must be understood to have been used by Mammața.
In this connection kārikā 7abc (i.e. bhedāv imau ca sādrśyāt, sambandhánta